Every president gets one chance to revise and update US nuclear weapons strategy. That chance is coming in just a few weeks, when President Obama will make critical decisions about the role and size of the US nuclear arsenal. [1]

The president supports the vision of a nuclear weapons free world, and this could be his last opportunity as president to codify that vision, and put it in writing.

That’s why we need you to sign our petition to President Obama today, to tell him that he shouldn’t let this chance slip away. 

The president agrees with us about nuclear weapons, but not all those who influence him do. Many influential lawmakers are pushing the president to water his vision down. That’s why Peace Action West is part of a national campaign to make sure he hears from us. Groups all over the country are working to get thousands of messages to the president, and your message will be hand-delivered in a meeting with White House staff before the president makes his decision. Join thousands of activists from across the country and take action today.

The president’s nuclear weapons strategy review will help determine whether we continue to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation or move closer to a world without nuclear weapons. Click here now to put your support in writing, and ask the president to do the same.

Rose Gottemoeller, the chief negotiator of the treaty with Russia, has a post on The Hill today celebrating the anniversary and the major victory for arms control the Senate vote represents:

This great bipartisan effort is paying big dividends now in strengthening U.S. national security. … The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5th of this year and immediately entered implementation. It is going very well.

Our experience so far demonstrates that the New START Treaty is enhancing our national security by building predictability and stability between the United States and Russia, still the world’s two largest nuclear powers. We are also setting the stage for the future, since new nuclear reductions will build on the success of New START and the innovations we are putting in place as we implement it.

Earlier this fall, the State Department released the latest totals of the deployed nuclear warheads restricted by the treaty.


This is down 178 from the 1968 strategic warheads that the US had deployed in May of 2010, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

In less than a year the process has been moving pretty quickly, with US warheads already approaching the 1700 limit of New START. This is a great sign, and reinforces our position that the State Department should start another round of negotiations with Russia ASAP to lower the limits much sooner than the treaty’s current expiration date of 2021.

So, here’s one more thank you and congratulations from me to you, for everything you did to help us flip 13 Republicans and achieve a decisive victory for arms control and nuclear disarmament. Have a Happy Birthday, New START!

engaging in some grassroots diplomacy in Shiraz, Iran

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m going to say that now would be a good time to engage in serious diplomacy with Iran.

A new report from the IAEA has reinvigorated calls for harsh action against Iran. While the conclusions of the report point to the possibility that Iran wants to have a nuclear weapons capability, it’s still not clear that they have make a definitive decision to build a bomb. The key point, as the Arms Control Association points out, is that “it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.”

Despite this important fact, politicians and pundits from both sides of the aisle are predictably calling for counterproductive responses.  Congress was already lining up broad, sweeping sanctions. The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed sanctions that would block attempts at diplomacy with Iran, and hurt regular Iranians though measures like preventing the president from allowing the sale of civilian airplane parts to Iran. When I took a couple of short flights within Iran a two years ago, it was the only time I ever had an ashtray in my armrest. We are talking about some old planes in dire need of repair, and hundreds of Iranians have suffered the consequences in plane crashes in recent years. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is leading the charge for what the National Iranian American Council calls the “nuclear option” of sanctions: going after Iran’s central bank, another move that would put a terrible burden on regular Iranians.

Sen. Joe Lieberman did his whole Lieberman thing, saying that the US must consider military force against Iran. And he’s not alone. I won’t spend a lot of time explaining why this would obviously be a horrible idea, but here are 5 reasons to start.

Joe Lieberman is right about one (only one?) thing: “what we have already been doing, that clearly hasn’t been working.” Barbara Slavin, who has spent much more time than many of these politicians studying and understanding Iran, called on the US to double down on diplomacy:

Washington and its partners should provide Iran with a clearer sense of what the international community would accept in terms of uranium enrichment and civilian nuclear activity — if Iran clarifies its behavior and accepts stringent safeguards against diversion to weapons. The Obama administration has been quick to pivot from talking to punishing. Iran needs to know that sanctions are not an end in themselves.

There is understandable frustration that sanctions have not forced Tehran to curb its nuclear program. As Congress and the administration contemplate further measures to increase pressure on Iran, however, they should focus on improving implementation of existing sanctions that target nuclear proliferation and Iranian officials rather than Iranians in general.

There are people who are highly pessimistic about engaging in diplomacy with Iran, and many have already declared it a failure. But many of the approaches recommended by experts on Iran haven’t even been tried. As Laicie Olsen of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation aptly pointed out, we’ve given the war in Afghanistan more than a decade (without much in the way of success to show for it); how about devoting even a fraction of that much time to serious, comprehensive diplomacy with Iran? Despite the political rhetoric, “all options” haven’t really been on the table. It’s time to put comprehensive, pragmatic diplomacy on the table before we head down an even more dangerous path with Iran.

Kicking it off with a bang, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) held a press conference yesterday to present the letter he wrote to the 12 members of the super committee: “Freeze the Nukes, Fund the Future.” The letter has been signed by 65 Representatives who agree with Rep. Markey that substantial cuts to the bloated nuclear weapons budget must be part of the plan to reduce the deficit.

The letter begins:

The Berlin Wall fell.  The Soviet Union crumbled.  The Cold War ended.  Yet 20 years later, we continue to spend over $50 billion a year on the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  This makes no sense.  These funds are a drain on our budget and a disservice to the next generation of Americans.  We are robbing the future to pay for the unneeded weapons of the past.  Now is the time to stop fighting last century’s war.  Now is the time to reset our priorities.  Now is the time to invest in the people and the programs to get America back on track.

Sounded pretty good to us. So, Peace Action West teamed up with Markey’s office and dozens of other organizations to email and call other representatives, urging them to join the letter. Go teamwork!

Rep. Markey also had an op-ed published in the influential Capitol Hill paper Politico on Monday:

The United States is the financial caretaker for 5,000 nuclear warheads. Some sit entombed in silos, invisible monuments to apocalyptic scenarios never realized. Others roam the sea, where, at any given time, 12 Trident submarines cruise, each armed with 96 nuclear weapons. A single submarine is capable of destroying all of Russia and China’s major cities, even though there is no clear and present reason to do so. The entire U.S. nuclear arsenal could destroy the world five times over.

….

The congressional supercommittee was established to make recommendations for at least $1.2 trillion in cuts to our federal deficit. In the next few weeks, the panel is due to finalize its plan to put America back on a sound financial footing. Our outdated bombs must serve as the “nuclear option” — we can cut at least $20 billion per year from the $50 billion nuclear weapons budget, or $200 billion over the next 10 years.

Now it’s up to the super committee to listen to the members of Congress, national security experts, and millions of Americans who support these cuts, rather than the well-funded defense industry.

You can see the full text of the letter and all 65 signers here.

Click here to tell the super committee to support a plan that ends the wars, cuts wasteful military and nuclear spending and protects alternatives to war. You will be redirected to their public comment page, where you can fill out your information and personalize the sample message.

Supporters of our bloated Pentagon budget are not taking this fight lying down. The defense industry has launched a massive lobbying campaign, dubbed “Second to None,” urging people to oppose cuts to the military budget. Super committee member Sen. Jon Kyl threw a temper tantrum and threatened to quit if military budget cuts were even on the table. Everyone from members of Congress to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are making unfounded claims about doomsday scenarios that would occur if the military budget decreases.

We need to push back. Click here to tell the super committee to protect our real priorities by cutting wasteful military and nuclear spending.

There are only a few weeks left to influence the super committee if they are going to meet their November deadline. We are pulling out all the stops, generating phone calls, postcards and emails and directly meeting with super committee members’ offices in DC and their districts.

Help us amplify our message before the super committee deadline. Click here to take action.

We sent the letter below to super committee members to clearly outline the balanced security budget Peace Action West’s supporters would like to see. You can tell the super committee that you support these priorities by clicking here.

On behalf of Peace Action West’s 50,000 supporters, I am writing to urge you to produce deficit reduction recommendations that make Americans more secure by balancing our security budget and preserving domestic programs that contribute to security and prosperity at home.

Reduce wasteful military spending

The base Pentagon budget has increased by more than 50% in the last decade. Pentagon spending, including Overseas Contingency Operations, accounted for 58% of the FY2011 discretionary budget. Any serious plan to reduce the deficit must address wasteful military spending, especially when that spending competes with funding for priorities such as healthcare, job creation, and education.

Our safety is not best measured in dollars spent, but rather in the strategy served by our budget. There is room for substantial reductions in military spending without detriment to US national security. This could include:

·      Reducing all DOD contracts by 10% and freezing hiring of civilian DOD employees

·      Bringing troops home from Europe and Asia and reducing ground forces to pre-9/11 levels

·      Eliminating unnecessary weapons systems such as the F-35, the MV-22 Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

·      Curtailing national missile defense

The Sustainable Defense Task Force report offers details on a potential $960 billion in savings over the next ten years.[i]

Military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

US taxpayers have spent more than $1.2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in direct costs.[ii]  The Eisenhower Study Group projects the long-term costs of the wars, including such costs as veterans’ care and interest payments, will reach $3.2-4 trillion.[iii] There have also been opportunity costs, such as lost jobs and lack of public investment in infrastructure. The macroeconomic impacts have also been significant; the average homebuyer paid an additional $600 in mortgage payments last year because of the increase in interest rates due to borrowing money for the wars.[iv]

The administration is reportedly considering keeping 3-10,000 troops in Iraq beyond the agreed-upon withdrawal deadline. The current plan for Afghanistan leaves nearly 70,000 troops on the ground in the fall of 2012, with no clear end date for withdrawal. With fewer than 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, there is no longer a compelling national security rationale for maintaining a massive military presence in Afghanistan. The raid that apprehended Osama bin Laden demonstrates that policing and intelligence are much more effective approaches to protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism.[v] There are several plans available with recommendations for reduced troop levels.[vi] Accelerating withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Reducing spending on nuclear weapons

With the Cold War over and a national security strategy that decreases reliance on nuclear weapons, the United States cannot afford to spend $700 billion over the next decade on nuclear weapons programs.[vii] In a 21^st century security environment, nuclear weapons are more of a liability than an asset; funding for weapons and delivery systems competes with more effective security priorities such as nonproliferation. Cuts could include:

·      Stopping construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility in New Mexico, saving $3-5 billion

·      Delaying the New Long Range Penetrating Bomber, saving $3.7 billion

·      Rightsizing the ballistic missile submarine fleet to eight boats, saving $27 billion over ten years

·      Canceling the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant, saving an estimated $4 billion

Avoiding disproportionate cuts to the international affairs budget

The international affairs budget accounts for only 1% of the federal budget, yet it has faced disproportionate cuts in the current budget battle, bearing nearly 20% of all discretionary funding cuts in FY2011. These cuts are even more devastating after years of neglect that have weakened our civilian engagement tools. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out, the entire Foreign Service does not include enough people to staff one aircraft carrier.

These programs are essential to preventing costly military intervention, promoting stability and saving lives around the globe. Shortsighted cuts in international affairs funding would further the imbalance in our current security budget and could have detrimental impacts on US engagement and security in the future.

Peace Action West’s supporters strongly urge the super committee to develop a deficit reduction plan that reflects a smart security budget as outlined above. Feel free to contact me for more details on any of these proposals.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Griffin

Political Director

Peace Action West

[i] http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf

[ii] http://costofwar.com/en/

[iii] http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

[iv] http://costsofwar.org/article/macroeconomic-impact-military-spending

[v] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

[vi] http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/06/the-afghan-troop-number-game.html

[vii] http://ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/What%20We%20Spend%20on%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20092811.pdf

The problem is that 15 years later, the Senate has yet to ratify the treaty. And without the full backing of the United States, the treaty has languished, with progress in other countries stalled as well.

But now, President Obama is testing the waters for a possible push to finally ratify the treaty, and set the stage for a global ban on nuclear explosions. After our recent victory in making the first reductions to the US and Russian nuclear arsenals in decades, momentum is on our side.

That’s why I believe the time for the CTBT is now. Click here to tell your senators to support ratification of the CTBT.

As the leaders of the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World we are spearheading a national week of action starting September 24th, with hundreds of groups across the country urging their senators to support ratification of the CTBT as soon as possible.

Join thousands of other activists to amplify your voice and call for the Senate to ratify the CTBT.

This treaty is a necessary step to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. If we want to repeat the victory we had with New START, we need to lay the groundwork now. The sooner we show the Senate that the public supports the CTBT, the better chance we have to swing the key votes we need to ratify.

Click here to tell your senators to support ratification of the CTBT and make the world safer from the threat of nuclear weapons.

When I entered Hiroshima, the charred bodies were still being pulled out of the rubble. The horror that I experienced burned a lasting impression in my conscience. To this day, it serves as a philosophical anchor – my beacon of clarity in a political arena that turns a deaf ear to those who do not speak the exotic language of megatons, kill probability ratios and other terms that desensitize us to the true nature of nuclear war.

For 8 years I was involved in progressive politics in Oregon, where Hatfield’s service as a senator and a governor was much admired, and I was saddened to learn of his death. It is surprising to newcomers to Oregon that so many on the left side of the aisle think so highly of Hatfield and his legacy. Because Senator Hatfield was a Republican.

The Senator consistently reached across the aisle to find common ground with Democrats, and felt it was important to act according to his own sense of right and wrong, even if it meant taking a position that was in conflict with the Republican Party line. As John Isaacs with Council for a Livable World put it:

Indeed, Hatfield represented a brand of Republican moderation that has largely been obliterated in United States politics.

In my work with communities across the state, I found that Oregonians of a variety backgrounds, perspectives and political stripes are proud of the bipartisan heritage that Senator Hatfield represents. When calling voters for the Jeff Merkley campaign in 2008 I spoke to one gentleman from Pendleton, in Eastern Oregon, a rural and historically conservative area. I started telling him about Jeff’s positions on various issues when he cut me off to ask, “is he going to do what he says he’s going to do?” Agreeing with a politician on every issue wasn’t as important to this gentleman as whether his senator had integrity and was going to do what he thought was right.

Senator Hatfield became one of the US Senate’s foremost leaders opposing the use of nuclear weapons and the nuclear arms race, never forgetting his experience in Hiroshima. The concept of an arms moratorium was originated by Senator Hatfield in 1979, and became what we now know as the nuclear weapons freeze. In a prime example of his bipartisanship, he partnered with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to sponsor a Senate resolution endorsing a mutual and verifiable nuclear weapons freeze. Although their resolution was never adopted, it was a groundbreaking proposal that paved the way for bipartisan efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and led to last year’s successful ratification of the New START Treaty.

And the fact that the United States has not explosively tested any nuclear weapons in 20 years is a direct result of Senator Hatfield’s work. He led the fight to impose a moratorium on nuclear testing in 1992, again partnering with a Democrat, Sen. Jim Exon (D-NE), to introduce an amendment that called for a moratorium on US testing, and required the US to begin negotiations on a multinational test ban. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has been signed by 182 nations, is the continuing legacy of Senator Hatfield and his experience witnessing first-hand the “incredible human suffering” caused by nuclear bombs.

We must urge our senators to put aside party divisions and vote to ratify the CTBT so that a complete ban on all nuclear testing becomes law, and finish the work that Senator Hatfield began when he stepped off that boat 66 years ago.

August 6th is the 66th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It is only by remembering the past that we can ensure our mistakes are never repeated.

Join me on Saturday, August 6th to remember the victims of nuclear weapons, and call attention to the danger nuclear material poses to our planet. Our keynote speaker, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, is a world-renowned nuclear expert who will draw the deep connections between nuclear weapons and nuclear power in light of this year’s tragic events at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.  Also, we’ll have live music, Taiko drummers and a live video chat with bomb survivors from Japan.

The event will be held outside of Livermore Laboratory, one of the two labs responsible for designing and developing nuclear warheads. 

The biggest story out the House today is the growth in support for ending the war in Afghanistan. Efforts to end the war in Afghanistan got more votes than ever before, and key members of the Democratic leadership Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer spoke in favor of the McGovern/Jones amendment to set a timeline for withdrawal. This sends a clear message to the administration at a critical time. The Pentagon is pushing for an insignificant withdrawal in July, and President Obama needs strong support to move toward a serious, sizable withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan amendments voted on were:

-       The McGovern/Jones amendment, which would have required the president to develop an exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan with a clear end date and report back to Congress. While this amendment just missed the number of votes needed for passage, this is the strongest showing yet, with 42 more votes than a similar amendment received last year. All but 8 Democrats supported it and 26 Republicans voted in favor. Failed, 204-215.

-       The Chaffetz/Welch amendment called for withdrawing all US ground troops from Afghanistan except for a small number for targeted counterterrorism operations. The Secretary of Defense would have been required to report on the withdrawal plan to Congress in 60 days.  Both of these amendments had lead sponsors from both sides of the aisle. Failed, 123-294.

US military involvement beyond Afghanistan came up as well:

-       Freshman Republican Rep. Justin Amash joined with a bipartisan group to offer an amendment to strike a section of the bill that would have greatly expanded the administration’s authorization to use military force against terrorists. Republicans added this language in committee, despite the fact that the administration didn’t even want expanded authorization. It’s not surprising that the amendment failed in the Republican House, but the Senate is unlikely to support the language, and we will work to keep it out of the final version of the bill. Failed, 187-234.

-       Rep. John Conyers offered an amendment prohibiting ground troops in Libya, which passed overwhelmingly. Passed, 416-5.

There were also several attempts to cut unnecessary military spending:

-       Rep. Jared Polis offered an amendment to reduce US troop levels in Europe by 30,000 this year and an additional 10,000 each year for the next five years. Failed, 96-323.

-       Rep. Lynn Woolsey tried to cut $2.6 billion for buying V-22 Osprey aircraft, an aircraft Time magazine called “a flying shame” and noted was so bad that even Dick Cheney wanted to cancel it. Failed, 83-334.

-       Rep. Jan Schakowsky offered an amendment that would have frozen Pentagon spending at current levels until the Pentagon could successfully pass an audit. Failed by voice vote.

-       Rep. Loretta Sanchez tried to cut $100 million for missile defense that had been added by Republicans in the Armed Services Committee. Failed, 184-234.

Nuclear weapons issues also came up in some amendments that were adopted by voice votes. Rep. Sanchez offered successful amendments to require a report on Russia’s nuclear forces and New START and to increase funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Thank you to all of you who participated in the national call-in day to tell your representatives to vote in favor of these amendments to end the war. With the July decision coming up, we need to keep the pressure on, so please take a moment to tell Congress why you want to end the war, and we’ll send your message along with a toy soldier to DC.